Gore goes @#$% nuts!

By ANDREA PEYSER

August 11, 2011

New York Post


Can it be ? Has the guru of global warming, the Bozo of ozone and pooh-bah of the probably-not- so-endangered polar bear, gone completely off his bleeping rocker?

I'm talking about Al Gore, the former vice president who, after losing the White House, reinvented himself as a minor deity -- a Gulfstream-riding, energy-slurping champion of Planet Earth.

But now, murmurs from warming doubters and Goreaholics alike are reaching a crescendo:

Is Al Gore out of his gourd?

It brings me small joy and great hilarity to report that symptoms of Gore's encroaching lunacy are piling up faster than a stack of earth-killing disposable diapers. In New York early this month, Gore hectored promiscuous gals to use "fertility management" (abortion?) and stop having kids, saving us all from atmosphere-dissolving burps, or something.

Then, he told like-minded crackpot Keith Olbermann that America needs a movement, modeled after the unfortunately bloody "Arab Spring" in Tahrir Square -- er, he said, "the nonviolent part of it" -- to fight, you guessed it, global warming!

Finally, in Aspen, Gore went on a psychedelic bender.

For doubting the holy gospel of earthly cooking -- which Gore can't be helping with his partiality to private planes -- he issued a blistering, potty-mouthed tirade against warming deniers, saving a few curses for assorted corporate scum.

"They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message, 'This climate thing, it's nonsense. Manmade CO2 doesn't trap heat. It may be volcanoes.' Bulls- - -t!"

Say what?

" 'It may be volcanoes.' Bulls- - -t!"

" 'It may be sun spots.' Bulls- - -t!"

" 'It's not getting warmer.' "All together now -- Bulls- - -t!"

He wasn't done cussing or beating up on unnamed corporations who once kept Americans addicted to cigarettes, but now keep us addicted to, I don't know, minivans or Lean Cuisine.

"They have polluted the s- - -t. There's no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate, even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea! It's no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the goddamn word 'climate.' "

The performance had even Gore's faithful followers in Hollywood wondering if he'd lost his meds.

Things have been slow in messiah-ville since Gore took home an Oscar for the 2006 science-fiction documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," which turned Gore into George Clooney, minus the looks. In the last two weeks, a couple of developments have thrown refrigerated water in his face.

It came out last month that scientist Charles Monnett, who drove sane folks to their checkbooks by declaring that melting ice caps had killed a bunch of cuddly polar bears, was being investigated for possible scientific misconduct by the federal agency for which he works. Apparently, it's related to his dead-polar-bear article. (The population of fuzzy friends has actually quintupled since 1950.)

Couple that with NASA's revelation that the Earth is letting more heat escape the planet than alarmists previously thought, blowing a hole in warming hysteria. Toss it all together, and you've got one nutty Gore.

Gore has long lived by the hypocrite's mantra: "Do what I demand, not what I do." After his Tennessee mansion was revealed to drink up to 20 times the energy of an average house, Gore added solar panels. Last year, ahead of his split with wife Tipper, Gore bought a massive spread in fabulous Montecito, Calif., near Oprah Winfrey and Michael Douglas.

Gore, who's fathered four kids, was adamant that women save the planet by tying their tubes, or worse. "To put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population." Who was he talking to?

As columnist Michael Walsh pointed out, Gore's comments weren't directed at Americans, whose population is flat, or Europeans and Japanese, whose shrinking populations eventually won't be able to pay for social programs.

Gore's eugenics kick, evidently, is aimed at reducing the number of folks in the Third World. But saying so would be -- oh, no! -- politically incorrect.

Admit it, Al. It's time for a new crusade.


























global warming

The Pews Are Gradually Emptying: The End of a Religion?

Gore still hot on his doomsday rhetoric




By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist
March 3, 2010



THE CASE for global-warming alarmism is melting faster than those mythical disappearing Himalayan glaciers, but Al Gore isn’t backing down.

In a long op-ed piece for The New York Times the other day, Gore cranked up the doomsday rhetoric. Human beings, he warned, “face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.’’ His 1,900-word essay made no mention of his financial interest in promoting such measures - Gore has invested heavily in carbon-offset markets, electric vehicles, and other ventures that would profit handsomely from legislation curbing the use of fossil fuels, and is reportedly poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire.’’ However, he did mention “global-warming pollution’’ no fewer than four times, declaring that “our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation’’ if we don’t move decisively to reduce it.

By “global-warming pollution,’’ Gore means carbon dioxide (CO2), which is a “pollutant’’ in roughly the way oxygen and water are pollutants: Human existence would be impossible without them. CO2 is essential to photosynthesis, the process that sustains plant life and generates the oxygen that human beings and animals inhale. Far from polluting the world, carbon dioxide enriches it. Higher levels of CO2 are associated with larger crop yields, increased forest growth, and longer growing seasons - in short, with a greener planet.

Of course carbon dioxide also contributes to the greenhouse effect that keeps the earth warm. But the vast majority of atmospheric CO2 occurs naturally, and it is far from clear that the carbon dioxide contributed by human industry has a significant impact on the world’s climate.

On the other hand, it is quite clear that the economic and agricultural activity responsible for that anthropogenic CO2 has been enormously beneficial to myriads of men, women, and children. In just the last two decades, life expectancy in developing nations has climbed appreciably and infant mortality has fallen. Hundreds of millions of Indian and Chinese citizens have been lifted out of poverty. Whatever else might be said about carbon dioxide, it has helped make possible a dramatic increase in the quality of many human lives.

But there is no awareness of such tradeoffs in Gore’s latest screed. He brushes aside as unimportant the recently exposed blunders in the 2007 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These include claims that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, that global warming could slash African crop yields by 50 percent, and that 55 percent of the Netherlands - more than twice the correct amount - is below sea level.

Gore seems equally untroubled by Climategate, the scandal involving researchers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, who apparently schemed to manipulate temperature data, to prevent their critics from being published in peer-reviewed journals, and to destroy records and calculations to keep climate skeptics from double-checking them.

Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s errors and the Climatic Research Unit scandal have triggered major investigations, and opinion polls show a falloff in the percentage of the public that believes either global warming is cause for serious concern or that scientists see eye to eye on the issue. Yet Gore insists, against all evidence, that “the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged.’’

To climate alarmists like Gore, everything proves their point. For years they argued that global warming would mean a decline in snow cover and shorter ski seasons. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,’’ one climate scientist lamented to reporters in 2000. The IPCC itself was clear that climate change was resulting in more rain and less snow.

Undaunted, Gore now claims that the blizzards that have walloped the Northeast in recent weeks are also proof of global warming. “Climate change causes more frequent and severe snowstorms,’’ he posted on his blog last month.

Gore is a True Believer; his climate hyperbole is less a matter of science than of faith. In almost messianic terms, he urges Congress to sharply restrain Americans’ access to energy. “What is at stake,’’ he writes, “is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.’’

But while Gore prays for redemption, the pews in the Church of Climate Catastrophe are gradually emptying. The public’s skeptical common sense, it turns out, is pretty robust. Just like those Himalayan glaciers.

Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth

He makes up facts.  Embarassing when the guy he quotes tells him he has no idea how Gore arrived at the conclusions!!!



December 15, 2009

London Times
Hannah Devlin, Ben Webster, Philippe Naughton in Copenhagen






Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up






There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

Mr Gore is not the only titan of the world stage finding Copenhagen to be a tricky deal.

World leaders — with Gordon Brown arriving tonight in the vanguard — are facing the humiliating prospect of having little of substance to sign on Friday, when they are supposed to be clinching an historic deal.

Meanwhile, five hours of negotiating time were lost yesterday when developing countries walked out in protest over the lack of progress on their demand for legally binding emissions targets from rich nations. The move underlined the distrust between rich and poor countries over the proposed legal framework for the deal.

Last night key elements of the proposed deal were unravelling. British officials said they were no longer confident that it would contain specific commitments from individual countries on payments to a global fund to help poor nations to adapt to climate change while the draft text on protecting rainforests has also been weakened.

Even the long-term target of ending net deforestation by 2030 has been placed in square brackets, meaning that the date could be deferred. An international monitoring system to identify illegal logging is now described in the text as optional, where before it was compulsory. Negotiators are also unable to agree on a date for a global peak in greenhouse emissions.

Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.

“Maslowski’s work is very well respected, but he’s a bit out on a limb,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.

Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.

He added: “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this,” he said. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office.”

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.”

 
 
 
 
 
 
global warming

Climate Change Travesty

George Will
Washington Post
December 6, 2009


"With 20,000 delegates, advocates and journalists jetting to Copenhagen for planet Earth's last chance, the carbon footprint of the global warming summit will be the only impressive consequence of the climate change meeting. Its organizers had hoped it would produce binding caps on emissions, global taxation to redistribute trillions of dollars, and micromanagement of everyone's choices.

China, nimble at the politics of pretending that is characteristic of climate change theater, promises only to reduce its 'carbon intensity' -- carbon emissions per unit of production. So China's emissions will rise.

Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million in 2050, so Obama's promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875. That. Will. Not. Happen."

Disclosure of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain -- a collaborator with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- reveals some scientists' willingness to suppress or massage data and rig the peer-review process and the publication of scholarly work. The CRU materials also reveal paranoia on the part of scientists who believe that in trying to engineer "consensus" and alarm about warming, they are a brave and embattled minority. Actually, never in peacetime history has the government-media-academic complex been in such sustained propagandistic lockstep about any subject.


The Post learns an odd lesson from the CRU materials: "Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them." These scientists overstated and censored because they were "goaded" by skepticism?

Were their science as unassailable as they insist it is, and were the consensus as broad as they say it is, and were they as brave as they claim to be, they would not be "goaded" into intellectual corruption. Nor would they meretriciously bandy the word "deniers" to disparage skepticism that shocks communicants in the faith-based global warming community.

Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic man-made warming are skeptical because climate change is constant: From millennia before the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300), through the Little Ice Age (1500 to 1850), and for millennia hence, climate change is always a 100 percent certainty. Skeptics doubt that the scientists' models, which cannot explain the present, infallibly map the distant future.

The Financial Times' peculiar response to the CRU materials is: The scientific case for alarm about global warming "is growing more rather than less compelling." If so, then could anything make the case less compelling? A CRU e-mail says: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" -- this "moment" is in its second decade -- "and it is a travesty that we can't."

The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate-change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars -- and substantially diminished freedom.

Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. On it, and hence on them, the planet's fate depends. So some of them consider it virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer-review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over.

Consider the sociology of science, the push and pull of interests, incentives, appetites and passions. Governments' attempts to manipulate Earth's temperature now comprise one of the world's largest industries. Tens of billions of dollars are being dispensed, as by the U.S. Energy Department, which has suddenly become, in effect, a huge venture capital operation, speculating in green technologies. Political, commercial, academic and journalistic prestige and advancement can be contingent on not disrupting the (postulated) consensus that is propelling the gigantic and fabulously lucrative industry of combating global warming.

Copenhagen is the culmination of the post-Kyoto maneuvering by people determined to fix the world's climate by breaking the world's -- especially America's -- population to the saddle of ever-more-minute supervision by governments. But Copenhagen also is prologue for the 2010 climate change summit in Mexico City, which will be planet Earth's last chance, until the next one.










global warming

Global Warming: Create Your Own Reality if No One Pays Attention

How can people be so short sighted.  Is not Global Warming the end of life as we know it?  Will not hundreds of millions of people be harmed, their lives destroyed, forced to survive without foods and shelter?  Why are we still polluting.  Why are we dumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere?  Why oh why are they driving their limosines and private jets, and creating more CO2 gases in several days, than 60 countries on earth do in one year!!!!!




Updated: Mon., Dec. 7, 2009, 9:33 AM




Denmark's warm and 'fuzzy facts'


New York Post
By CHARLES HURT
December 7, 2009



COPENHAGEN -- Shakespeare's Marcellus was right. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

In this hotbed of homogeneity, where global warming is a sacred assumption for the faithful, 15,000 people will come together from 192 countries to pray for two weeks over what can be done to save the Earth from certain doom. Few places are better suited to handle the throngs of unquestioning believers who will journey from around the globe.

Dissent is not tolerated, and diversity -- in any form other than biodiversity -- is not welcome here.

But it turns out that Denmark's big claim to greenery isn't quite so impressive when you find out that they do not include one of their biggest and dirtiest industries -- shipping -- in calculating their annual carbon footprint.

That's because the last great world climate treaty, Kyoto, does not make them include their nasty shipping business in the calculation. No wonder the Danes liked that so much.

Even if President Obama gives away the farm when he arrives next week and signs some drastic pledge, it will be a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate.

His Democratic majority dwindles to basically nothing without members from coal states, heavy-industry states and other states where people generally would like to find a job.

But this crowd gathering here is far worse than just a bunch of hand-wringing Hamlets dithering in Denmark.

Some 40,000 tons of carbon will be spewed getting this crowd together and keeping them in comfort.

That is the amount of carbon dioxide produced by more than 60 of the world's smaller countries in an entire year -- combined.








 
 
 
 
 
global warming

Global Warming: The Debate is over!

global warmingAl Gore says it is over (the debate on global warming). Al Gore says everyone believes it, accepts it, and understands that it is happening. The only people, according to Gore who do not accept the fear-mongering about global warming are right-wing nuts and crazy people.


Then came East Anglia, and the dawning of the depths of the conspiracy over falsifying data, limiting what data is available, creating a schedule that conforms to their desired outcome.

Now admittedly, some people will say - but scientists are by their very nature objective, placing scientific reason and serious study ahead of bias and opinion. Scientists we are told are better able to discern between fact and fiction, between what is right, and what is most necessary for all of us mortals to do to save ourselves. After all, they only have our planets best interests in the forefront of all discussion and debate. They wish to help us, save us, make our lives better, and provide a future for mankind.

So compassionate, so parental of these scientists.

How about those many many scientists who are engaged as we read this, in cloning - even those who have gone beyond theory, and perhaps beyond simple manipulation of genes or cells. After all, are humans not just complex gene arrangements? For scientists we are very little else. We accidentally have achieved what no other set of genes / cells, and DNA have - control of a planet. It could just as easily been the dog or dinosaur, but for their inability to adapt. We are, to these scientists lucky we exist at all, and consequently the idea of cloning does not in the slightest cause some of these scientists to lose sleep. I am quite certain if you polled 1000 scientists, and asked them if they believed it inevitable in the next 100 years that humans end up cloned, or at the very least, our body parts end up cloned - I am willing to bet 96% would accept that finality, and they would do so with little hesitation - as a matter of fact.

Yet what of a majority of humans on earth - I can think of, with little effort, at least 3 billion people who oppose cloning. What of the majority - should not the fact a majority oppose it not end the discussion and debate on the topic? You may offer a retort - the planet has 6+ billion, and 3 is not a majority. It is. Of the 6.3 billion, at least 450-500 million would have no thought, no idea one way or another. That would be about 8% and in any given poll on almost any subject - 8-10% have no opinion. That leaves about 5 billion 800 million, of which 3 billion is more than half, and a majority.

So - shouldn't the debate be over? If a majority is what Gore seeks in his argument to force an end to any debate or questioning of his religion - should the fact that 3 billion oppose it, not end the debate?

And more importantly - assume for one moment that we are governed by what nearly all the planet accepts is a God of some type or form, how does He feel about it. We have a clue - we read either the Old Testament, the New Testament, or the Koran - the books of more than 3 billion people on earth. God is particularly annoyed by man who thinks he has the power of God. God has, after all, only two powers - life and death, whether the corporal or the spiritual - and suddenly man has taken over creating life. God is not important, and for a God who ravaged mankind a few times when He was ignored, we are surely tempting Him again. The majority of mankind opposes cloning humans and the creation of life through science. For many, it is dangerous and treads into areas mankind has long been fearful of violating. For the vast majority of mankind, it is an area of great danger and the scientists leading us down this path are not regarded as pioneers, but rather as cult figures drawing more gullible people into their lifestyle each day.

If these scientists are wrong and the idea of cloning humans is perhaps not ethical and more than likely immoral yet the scientists are plowing ahead anyway, why are climatologists so different?

Why are the climatologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, meteorologists - why are they not susceptible to the wrong path, as are scientists involved in cloning? There are hundreds of millions of dollars thrown at global warming universities, groups, scientists, and believers. More money than is the GNP for most of Africa in any given year, and with this extreme wealth, scientists and their faithful following would have us believe no one falls prey to making up lies? So some scientists may be unethical (cloning) but all climatologists are acting in the world's best interests, out of altruism.


How much money was spread around in Chile when Pinochet was in power - to keep the system blinded. How much was spread around hen Peron was in power in Argentina. How much do the Saudis spread around each year to keep the world off guard about what is happening? And the governments of the world are dumping hundreds of millions into global warming ... and someone will say - of course it isn't happening and here is the rest of your money back, I didn't want a job next year anyway.


The White House decided it was time it got into the whole debate ... Robert Gibbs who will go down as one of the biggest lackeys in any administration "claimed that global warming was no longer in dispute by most people. But a subsequent Rasmussen Reports poll of Americans finds only one in four adults believe most scientists agree on the topic."



According to the same article, a poll by Rasmussen found that "nearly 60% believe it is at least somewhat likely that scientists have falsified environmental data to support their own global warming beliefs and theories."


Get over it, we won!









 
 
 
 
 
 
global warming

Al Gore: Whats mine is mine and whats yours is mine and its all in your best interest

empty space






Whose Rain Forest Is This, Anyway?


The New York Times
May 18, 2008

By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO



RIO DE JANEIRO — For as long as most can remember, Brazil has gazed nervously at maps of the vast, mostly uninhabited territory of the Amazon rain forest.

In the 1960s and ’70s, generals here saw the colonization of the Brazilian Amazon, which is half the size of Europe, as a national security priority. Ocupar para não entregar — “occupy it to avoid surrendering it” — was the slogan of the day. Highways were built, and Brazilians were offered incentives to conquer the land in the Amazon and transform it in the name of development.

There was more behind the nervousness than idle conspiracy theory. Even then, such a unique and vast repository of riches stirred imaginations worldwide. Herman Kahn, the military strategist and futurist, pushed the idea of establishing a freshwater lake in the Amazon to transform the area into a center of agricultural production.

Now, with the world focusing on the promises of biodiversity and the perils of global warming, a chorus of international leaders have ever more openly declared the Amazon part of a patrimony far larger than that of the nations that share its territory. “Contrary to what Brazilians think, the Amazon is not their property, it belongs to all of us,” Al Gore, then a senator, said in 1989.

Such comments are not taken lightly here. In fact, they have reignited old attitudes of territorial protectionism and watchfulness for undercover foreign invaders (now including bioprospectors).

The government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is pushing a law that would restrict access to the rain forest, requiring foreigners and Brazilians alike to obtain a special permit to enter it. Brazilian officials say it would separate bad non-governmental organizations from good ones, and deter so-called “biopirates” — those who want to patent unique substances discovered in the forest.

“The Amazon is ours,” Justice Secretary Romeu Tuma Jr. said in an interview. “We want to know who is going there and what they are going to do. It’s a question of national sovereignty.”

But that question is not as straightforward as it may seem. One man’s savior of sovereignty can be another’s despoiler of the forest.

And many Amazon experts say the proposed restrictions conflict with Mr. da Silva’s own efforts to give Brazil a greater voice in global climate change talks — an implicit acknowledgment that the Amazon is critical to the world at large. In addition, his critics have seized on a report in January of a spike in deforestation, as proof the government has not been safeguarding the region well.

Last week, Marina Silva, a fierce advocate of rain forest preservation, resigned as Mr. da Silva’s environmental minister after losing a series of political battles to him over development programs.

Seen in a global context, the restrictions reflect a larger debate about sovereign rights versus the world’s patrimony. International companies, for example, vie with nations to claim and develop resources in virgin territory in the Arctic, as melting ice reveals potentially vast oil and mineral deposits. There is also a struggle over who is entitled to grant access to international scientists and environmentalists seeking to protect such areas, and to companies seeking to exploit them. It is a struggle likely only to become thornier in coming years, in the face of two conflicting trends: rising demand for energy resources and increasing concern about climate change and pollution.

Here in Brazil, which contains 60 percent of the Amazon’s territory, this new debate is cast in terms recognizable from the past — notably the long-held suspicion by conservatives and the military that the real goal of foreigners is to take control of Brazil’s tropical wilderness and its riches.

The Amazon’s global importance is well established. It acts as a climate regulator, directly affecting rainfall patterns in Brazil and Argentina. Its winds, recent studies say, may even affect rainfall in Europe and North America. The burning and decomposition of trees cut down for development makes Brazil’s chunk of the Amazon responsible for about half of the world’s annual greenhouse-gas emissions from deforestation, says Meg Symington, Amazon director for the World Wildlife Fund in the United States.

Brazilian fears that the Amazon would be occupied by thieving foreigners go back at least to 1876, when Sir Henry Alexander Wickham took seeds from Brazil’s rubber-bearing trees back to London, from where they were sent to what is now Malaysia, as well as Africa and other tropical locations, dooming the Amazonian rubber boom.

Since then, there have been only scattered documented cases of what the Brazilians think of as biopiracy. The pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb, for example, found that the venom of the jararaca snake could help control high blood pressure and used it to create the drug Captopril. But by and large, said Thomas E. Lovejoy, president of The Heinz Center, a supporter of environmental research, “Biopiracy is a real red herring.”

Still, Brazil has extreme sensitivity to foreigners doing scientific work in the Amazon. Marc van Roosmalen, a Dutch-born primatologist and naturalized citizen, was arrested in 2002 and sentenced to 16 years for possessing monkeys in captivity without proper authorization, according to Brazilian newspapers. He is appealing the sentence.

Mr. Lovejoy and others in advocacy organizations worry that the Amazon restrictions will discourage science, hurt ecotourism and shield Brazil from scrutiny. “The government is not interested in more people going to the Amazon to address the incompetence it has shown in slowing deforestation,” said Marcelo Furtado, campaign director for Greenpeace Brazil.

Mr. Tuma said the authorizations for access will be decided by the justice and defense officials. Foreigners in violation without a permit could be fined $60,000 or more.

“We are not looking to criminalize the activities of the N.G.O.’s,” he said. “We want to give prestige to the serious N.G.O.’s, the serious international groups that have contributions to make to Brazil and to the world.”

But José Goldemberg, a former environmental secretary for the state of São Paulo, echoed many environmentalists in calling the strategy “paranoid,” and evoked the way the cold war Kremlin sealed off whole areas from prying eyes.

“If you try to control it, this will end up like the Soviet Union,” he said.















brazil

Al Gore and his Internet AKA The Punjab

I like the Times - how they water down the embarassment and make it humorous. Imagine if Bush had done this!

I had the clipping from the paper sitting in a vast folder of interesting bits. I'd like to throw out a lot.

Los Angeles Times
March 5, 1997
Washington Insight
Part A; Page 5; National Desk




OFFICIAL FUMBLE: It isn't often that a U.S. vice president gets to become the father of a new country, but Al Gore seemed to be doing just that when he signed a letter to the "Council of Khalistan" about goings-on in the state of Punjab. The letter came as a big surprise to India, which had been pretty certain that the United States considered the territory--where Sikhs want to create their own state--to be part of India. State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns says the letter was an error by Gore's staff and the Clinton administration has apologized to India. "Sometimes we have a perfect foreign policy and sometimes we have minor mistakes," Burns said. "In this case there was a mistake. . . . Of course, we do not recognize a republic of Khalistan. We recognize the Punjab to be part of India."















Gore

Gore: Self Serving Liar

CNN's John Roberts Fails to Press Gore on Bush Criticism Whopper

Newsbusters.org
By Matthew Balan
Created 2009-05-15 17:14

CNN anchor John Roberts failed to catch former Vice President Al Gore make a significant exaggeration about his criticism of the Bush administration in its early years during an interview on Friday’s American Morning. When asked about former Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent criticism of the Obama administration, Gore claimed that he had “waited two years after I left office to make statements that were critical, and then of the policy.” In reality, he made a significant policy speech denouncing the Bush administration’s pre-war policy towards Iraq in September 2002. CNN itself reported on the speech, which was made in San Francisco in front of the Commonwealth Club. Later, when Gore said that he didn’t “want to get dragged into an argument with Dick Cheney about what he’s getting into,” Roberts joked sarcastically, “Oh, Mr. Vice President, you know I would never try to do that with you.”

Roberts’s taped interview of Gore aired in three parts, and his questions to Gore about Cheney came during the second part, which began at the bottom half of the 7 pm Eastern hour of the CNN program. The anchor asked the former vice president, “You were a big critic of the previous administration, particularly in the run-up to the war and thereafter. What do you think of Vice President Cheney’s statements that the Obama administration’s policies are leaving this country less safe?”

Gore replied, “Well, obviously, I strongly disagree, and, you know, I waited two years after I left office to make statements that were critical, and then of the policy. You know, you talk about somebody that shouldn’t be talking about making the country less safe, invading a country that did not attack us and posed no serious threat to us at all. You know, he can speak for himself, and I have a feeling that members of his own party wish that he would not do that. But I’ll let that be an argument between him and them.”

Gore is playing with the historical record, as he blasted the Bush administration and its allies in the Commonwealth Club speech on September 23, 2002 [1]:

By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network.....

The Bush Administration may now be realizing that national and international cohesion are strategic assets. But it is a lesson long delayed and clearly not uniformly and consistently accepted by senior members of the cabinet. From the outset, the Administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of solidarity among Americans and between America and her allies....

Far more damaging, however, is the Administration’s attack on fundamental constitutional rights. The idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedies, and that this can be done on the say-so of the President or those acting in his name, is beyond the pale.

The CNN report from the next day [2] highlighted that Gore “warned Monday that President Bush’s doctrine allowing for a ‘pre-emptive’ strike against Iraq could create a global ‘reign of fear.’” It added that the former vice president, “[w]hile backing Bush’s overall goal of ousting Saddam and eliminating Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction...questioned the timing of a military strike, as envisioned in the proposed resolution he’s sent to Capitol Hill.” As a White House correspondent for CBS News at the time, it is likely that Roberts was aware of Gore’s 2002 speech, and you would think that he would recall it.

The report also mentioned that Gore’s Commonwealth Club speech was “first major speech on the situation in Iraq since February [2002].” The New York Times reported on this prior speech [3], in which the former vice president “generally praised President Bush's performance since Sept. 11, but raised questions about how Mr. Bush had worked with other nations in the war in Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda.” He also apparently “went to great lengths to avoid being portrayed as criticizing a sitting president during a war.”

Roberts followed-up to his first question by trying again to get Gore to criticize Cheney: “Are you suggesting that it is unusual for a former vice president, former administration official that high-ranking to come out this early in a new administration and be this critical?” Gore tried to be more nuanced in his answer, which lead to Roberts’s sarcastic rejoinder:

GORE: You know, look, that’s a judgment call and he’s made his judgment. He has become, in many ways, the leading spokesman for his party during this period of time, and the message is one that he’s deciding to deliver. Look, I’m going to focus on trying to build bipartisan alliances around this country for American leadership to solve the climate crisis, and I don’t want to get dragged into an argument with Dick Cheney about what -- what he’s getting into. So I’m just going to let him speak for himself.

ROBERTS (with sarcasm): Oh, Mr. Vice President, you know I would -- I would never try to do that with you. (laughs)

GORE: (laughs) You’re good at your job, John.

The anchor closed the interview by getting the former vice president’s take on the Obama administration’s performance so far:

ROBERTS: Let me ask you about the new administration. How do you think they’re doing so far?

GORE: I think they’re doing amazingly well. I think that he is moving forward on all fronts in a very intelligent, focused and committed way -- that is exactly what the country needs. There’s room for disagreement on this policy or that policy, but overall, I think that the American people are responding the same way I am. And by the way, I think he’s done a terrific job of reaching out to his opposition.

ROBERTS: Even though he only got three Republicans in the Senate to vote for the stimulus package, and none of them voted for his budget?

GORE: Correct, and I don’t think that's to be laid at his feet. I think that the efforts that he has made and continues to make may well bear fruit later on.

ROBERTS: And are you confident that all of this money, all of these trillions of dollars are being spent wisely?

GORE: Yes. Whenever you have programs of this size, you will always find critics to pick out one or two things and spin them in a negative way. But, by in large, I think they’ve set the right priorities and that they’re doing an excellent job. Yes.






Gore liar

The Goreacle has spoken

Wall Street Journal

Former Vice President Al Gore repeated his message that climate change is a planetary emergency at the WSJ’s Eco:nomics conference in California. The Nobel-prize winner declined to take any questions from reporters, but he did receive a couple of challenges from attendees, including Bjorn Lomborg. But don’t expect Mr. Gore to debate the merits of how best to tackle climate change anytime soon.

Mr. Gore stuck to his prepared script about the urgency of taking action to curb global greenhouse-gas emissions, down to well-worn phrases he trots out at conferences across the country: America is at “a political tipping point” on climate change, and even if Washington has failed to address the energy challenge in the last 35 years, “political will is a renewable resource.”

But he was challenged by Mr. Lomborg, the Danish skeptical environmentalist who thinks the world would be better off spending more money on health and education issues than curbing carbon emissions.

“I don’t mean to corner you, or maybe I do mean to corner you, but would you be willing to have a debate with me on that point?” asked the polo-shirt wearing Dane.

“I want to be polite to you,” Mr. Gore responded. But, no. “The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue,” he said. “It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake,” he added.

As an example, he pointed to a new addition to the budget for the island nation of the Maldives: “Funds to buy a new nation.”

*************************

Any extra land available?

One example of the Maldives, who for many reasons may be looking for another piece of property, used as an example.

The science is anything but settled on this Mr. Gore. Several years ago you popped on the scene and told us it was settled. Scientists were strong-armed into not disagreeing, government contracts were handed out to research global warming - the vested interested had taken hold.

After the initial beer-goggle days, scientists took a step back and began rethinking their positions, and found their voice amist the effort to keep them quiet, and now, a near overwhelming number disagree with your assertions.

Several leading global warming theorists, who accept your nonsense, instead argue - spend the money on actions that will help those most impacted, not on trying to curb something that cannot be altered.

Instead, you march forward, convicted in your beliefs - like the flat-earthers, like the religious who describe the earth as thousands of years old - you too, stand convicted in your belief and cannot imagine disagreement.

You sir, are a fool, a ninny, and a great suck on the lemon of life.

One day you will see how foolish and irresponsible you have been. I pray it is sooner than later.








Gore

Gore told to remove one of his slides as misleading (who would have guessed)

Mr. Gore's presentation will be a few minutes shorter now ...


February 23, 2009, 12:31 pm — Updated: 9:18 pm -->


Gore Pulls Slide of Disaster Trends


By Andrew C. Revkin

Former Vice President Al Gore is pulling a dramatic slide from his ever-evolving global warming presentation. When Mr. Gore addressed a packed, cheering hall at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago earlier this month, his climate slide show contained a startling graph showing a ceiling-high spike in disasters in recent years.

The data came from the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (also called CRED) at the Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels.

The graph, which was added to his talk last year, came just after a sequence of images of people from Iowa to South Australia struggling with drought, wildfire, flooding and other weather-related calamities. Mr. Gore described the pattern as a manifestation of human-driven climate change. “This is creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented,” he said.

(The preceding link is to a video clip of that portion of the talk; go to 7th minute.)

Now Mr. Gore is dropping the graph, his office said today. Here’s why.



Is is misleading. Must be difficult being Gore ... finding all the missing ice, and now being told his slide presentation isn't up to snuff.


[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link]







Gore

Gore and His Warming / Cooling Issues

The amount of energy used in his home during the past year could have powered about 232 homes in the US for an entire month!

He tries so hard though.



His carbon footprint can never be reduced even if he tries even harder.

All those plane rides, limousines, SUVs.




Gore

Bore

Fools


Hypocrit









Gore is a fucktard

Someone with some sense

Earthtimes.org

Czech President Klaus ready to debate Gore on climate change

Posted on : 2008-05-27 Author : DPA News Category : Environment

Washington - Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Tuesday he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming, as he presented the English version of his latest book that argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms. "I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he's not too much willing to make such a conversation," Klaus said. "So I'm ready to do it."

Klaus was speaking a the National Press Building in Washington to present his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?, before meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday.

"My answer is it is our freedom and, I might add, and our prosperity," he said.

Gore a former US vice president who has become a leading international voice in the cause against global warming, was co-winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. Gore's effort was highlighted by his Oscar winning documentary film An Inconvenient Truth.

Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the "climate alarmism" perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.

"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said.

"In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added.

Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he opposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change.

"It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda," he said.

Klaus alleged that the global warming was being championed by scientists and other environmentalists whose careers and funding requires selling the public on global warming.
"It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only," Klaus said.

***********************************************************

Whatever issues we have, whatever ails the earth, if anything, can and will be fixed by the free market system - by private industry investing in technology and developing through R&D new sources of technology and fuel - we have been to the moon, through space - we can fix the smokestacks of the world, BUT not through treaty or laws or forced adherence to a stupid naive cause, but to something greater - the ingenuity of the private sector, most in the United States.






.

It's Getting Hotter

Not.


According to UN meteorologists (read: Usually Nincompoops), the temperatures are cooling and have not risen globally since 1998. BBC, 4/4/08.

We should begin preparing for the ice age on its way. Oh, and message to Gore ... global warming does not cause global cooling. The case is not closed on global warming and the only people who are certain and closed to the questions are closed-minded fools reminiscent of the Catholic Church and Galileo.

While we are at it, we may as well pay attention to all the weather disasters to prove global warming, as has been suggested - ooops. Lloyds of London warns of lack of natural disasters having an effect on insurance companies ... they will have to start lowering their premiums.
The Guardian, 4/4/08.

Now who could possibly be pushing this agenda (besides Gore who wants to keep his Oscar - and would he do all this even if it was proven otherwise, likely)? Hmmm. The World Bank is one answer. Reuters 4/4/08.

Obama / Gore and we can't forget HILLARY and Bill

Barack Obama told an audience in Pennsylvania on Wednesday that he regularly talks to Al Gore. Further, he told his audience that he would consider him for a cabinet position or higher.
Examiner.com, 4/2/08: Obama: I'd Hire Gore


EXCEPT ... according to Democratic strategists ...

Political strategists say it’s a near impossibility that Al Gore, a Nobel Prize winner, former vice president and Hollywood darling, would ever serve in Barack Obama’s cabinet, should the Illinois senator win the White House.
April 3, 2008, Boston.com.



What about Hillary.

Bill has compared her to ... who else ... but a Kennedy. Not John, but Robert.

"You know, 40 years ago, two days from today, Robert Kennedy was in Indiana campaigning for president when Martin Luther King was killed. I was 21 years old. I was a senior at Georgetown. I was supporting Robert Kennedy. And it was a really interesting thing," Clinton told the crowd who had waited two and half hours to hear him speak.

"I remember so well watching Bobby Kennedy here the night Martin Luther King was killed. Then, I was in Washington at Georgetown, the city exploded into flames and I turned my car into an ambulance and I took supplies to the African Americans that were burned out of their homes and were hiding in church basements basically trying to stay alive, and surrounded by national guardsmen protecting them. It was a long time ago. But I always thought America would have been a very different place if Robert Kennedy had lived, because he wanted to be the candidate of people who had hopes and dreams, and also the candidate of people who could barely keep body and soul together."

The former President went on to draw a parallel he has drawn many times before, explaining how some view his wife as the heir to Senator Robert Kennedy, while others view Senator Barack Obama as the heir to President John F. Kennedy.
ABC News, April 2, 2008


WHAT IS UP WITH EVERYONE WANTING TO BE A KENNEDY!

Get over them. The best two were killed. We only have residue left over.

Flat Earthers

Gore is now saying that anyone who believes global warming is not man made are like those who believe the US never went to the moon because the earth is flat.

Self-avowed "P.R. agent for the planet" Al Gore says those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man - among them, Vice President Dick Cheney - are acting like the fringe groups who think the 1969 moon landing never really happened, or who once believed the world is flat.

A brilliant man who lives among unappreciating people. He needs to, he must go to where he will be appreciated. Mars.